Guest guest Posted November 8, 2004 Report Share Posted November 8, 2004 mucho gracias for the info -- does broaden one's perspective -- change ?? not yet -- not enough evidence yet -- for all we know all these bridges were man made during regional ramayana equivalents in the same period, misinterpreted by modern day atheist scientists !! ( part of this is " just kidding " ) ashok bhaskar 1984 Shah wrote: As examples, I would like to add the following: 1. Between Venezuela and Puerto Rico, there is an identical 'bridge' of outcroppings. Some are large and have villages like Fort-de-France, Road town, etc. on them. 2. Closer at home to Ashok, there is a bridge between the Bahamas and the Turks and Caicos islands. 3. Greece and Turkey share a similar bridge in the Mediterranean sea. 4. But the best example of a bridge is between Alaska near Anchorage and Russia in the Bering Sea near Petropavlavosk Karnchatskiy. This is by far the longest bridge and is almost a perfect semicircle. Besides these, there are plenty of other bridges in the Pacific ocean in South East Asia around Papa New Guinea. Man made? I don't think so. Kishore Shah 1974 Hanuman's bridge > > There are two ways of looking at a problem. Either you make the facts fit a > theory, or you make a theory which fits the facts. You can also tailor make > the facts, so that only the relevant facts are high lighted and your theory > is proved. > > Ashok's postulate that Hanuman made a bridge between India and Lanka can be > viewed from this angle. > > It is a fact that in the Palk strait there is a line of small outcroppings > in the ocean almost in a straight line joining Rameshwaram and Lanka. It is > also a fact that the adjoining sea is shallow only at that point. An ariel > view would make the almost straight line of outcroppings look as if man > made. > > If only these facts are high lighted, anyone will obviously conclude that > some man (or monkey) made this 'bridge' to Lanka. However, there is a > fallacy in this argument. > > There are some facts which have been deliberately ignored. > > 1. The so called bridge is not an isolated formation, but is an extension of > similar outcroppings extending up to and beyond Vallinokam and Vembar, which > are far away from Lanka. > > 2. Anywhere in the world, adjoining islands and land masses have a shallow > area in between and outcroppings are a common phenomenon. > > 3. India, Pakistan (and Lanka) broke away from the Australian sub continent > billions of years ago and banged head on into the Asian land mass creating > the Himalayas. The Lankan land mass is part of the Indian mass which broke > off and lagged behind and left a remnant between in the form of a bridge. > However, there are other parts of this remnant. (See point 1) > > 4. Extensive geological studies have already been conducted on the rock > samples of this 'bridge'. The whole mass is that of fused volcanic rock. > There is absolutely no evidence that any part of it is man made. > > Now it is up to you. You can either create a theory which can explain all > these facts, or you can bend these facts to support your theory and live in > a romantic cocoon of fantasy. > > Please note that this mail is not meant to prove or disprove the Ramayana. > It only attempts to clarify the highlighted facts. It seeks to point out > that just by looking out of an aircraft and seeing natural formations which > 'seem' man made is not enough. In this age of evidence based medicine, we > need evidence based theories too. > > Kishore Shah 1974 ------------------------------ Website: www.mgims.org ------------------------------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.